Current Affairs How do we tackle terrorism?

[tsubaki]

And what about a 22 year old in Manchester, and what happens when they all fall out with each other, and what about those in the Philippines and West Africa......

Who do you think inspires those people? Deal with them (and bringing a just peace to the region does that) and the 22 year old in Manchester, and those in West Africa, will be sorted out.

The Philippines are screwed however for as long as that Duerte is in charge.

 

[Tubey]

You do realize ISIS is a direct result of Western meddling in the Middle East, right?

As an American I can fully hold my hand up and accept responsibility for our failed policies over there.

Continuing to try to have a war with an ideology will only fan the flames of extremism.

I disagree almost completely.

The only part I agree on is that a physical war with an ideology, on its' own, is not enough - but you still have to wipe out their strongholds so they don't have a base to project from.

This is spot on from a former extremist: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-prevent-further-terror-attacks-a7145816.html

The Nice killer, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, is a classic case of rapid radicalisation, where an unstable life was given purpose by the clarity of Islamism. To stop future attacks, we must focus on the ingredients of the radicalisation cocktail rather than its end product.

Except he neglects to focus on the infrastructure 'ingredient' abroad that allowed the groups he was in to exist and thrive. You wipe them out, and counter with a hearts and minds strategy at home to the Muslim community as a whole - meaning multiculturalism needs to be embraced and we need to stop having these segregated communities that do massive harm to our societal cohesion - and stress the justification in dealing with those who have corrupted their faith.

I'm not a right-wing war-crazed angry nutjob, but I definitely see objectively that we are stupid to rule out a multi-pronged effort to eradicating extremism, and that effort should have the option of military action on the table. If we have intelligence on ISIS leadership, we shouldn't hesitate to destroy them. If a caliphate has a stronghold, we should wipe it from existence with all means at our disposal.

You can't stop the nutjob from blowing himself up once he's committed to doing it, but you can strangle the network that enables the action, and you can act to explain morally why it is a distortion of Islam.

 

[John23]

I should have clarified that better.

Get out of their affairs with military action.

Offer any and all humanitarian aid we can.

These loons are different though mate. It's about the Cult for them rather than territory. They're only using territory as an excuse.

 

[Tubey]

But this current lot are detested, or were before he was shot, by Bin Laden.

It is far too simplistic to say "The West invaded Iraq and ISIS was the result".

It probably didnt help, but at the core, they are an organised criminal gang, albeit a large one, trading oil and drugs and heavens only knows what else, have Billions in the bank, and use the foot soldiers to perpetuate their influence and maintain their wealth.

They actually hate loads of other Muslims as well, remember.

It's not only simplistic; it's outright wrong.

You can go back to the 80s and the Beirut Embassy Bombings - exactly the same thing. Islamic terrorists using bombs to kill "crusader imperialists". Or quite frankly long before that.

 

[tsubaki]

But this current lot are detested, or were before he was shot, by Bin Laden.

It is far too simplistic to say "The West invaded Iraq and ISIS was the result".

It probably didnt help, but at the core, they are an organised criminal gang, albeit a large one, trading oil and drugs and heavens only knows what else, have Billions in the bank, and use the foot soldiers to perpetuate their influence and maintain their wealth.

They actually hate loads of other Muslims as well, remember.

Bin Laden hated them because of what they represented, which was an alternative place for the disaffected to flock to that was a lot easier to get to than al-Qaeda was. Had we not caused so many people to be disaffected in Iraq - by invading their country and throwing tens of thousands of them onto the dole - they wouldn't have gone into what became IS.

There will always be people like IS, al-Qaeda and their ilk - what we need to do is cut off their support, both by acting reasonably in the region (to deny them popular support) and by not ourselves supporting that sect to the exclusion of all other muslim opinion.

 

[ilikecheese]

But this current lot are detested, or were before he was shot, by Bin Laden.

It is far too simplistic to say "The West invaded Iraq and ISIS was the result".

It probably didnt help, but at the core, they are an organised criminal gang, albeit a large one, trading oil and drugs and heavens only knows what else, have Billions in the bank, and use the foot soldiers to perpetuate their influence and maintain their wealth.

They actually hate loads of other Muslims as well, remember.

Referring to them as a gang (a well funded one at that) is a great description. Poor people feeling a part of something bigger. A purpose.

 

[John23]

I disagree almost completely.

The only part I agree on is that a physical war with an ideology, on its' own, is not enough - but you still have to wipe out their strongholds so they don't have a base to project from.

This is spot on from a former extremist: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-prevent-further-terror-attacks-a7145816.html



Except he neglects to focus on the infrastructure 'ingredient' abroad that allowed the groups he was in to exist and thrive. You wipe them out, and counter with a hearts and minds strategy at home to the Muslim community as a whole - meaning multiculturalism needs to be embraced and we need to stop having these segregated communities that do massive harm to our societal cohesion - and stress the justification in dealing with those who have corrupted their faith.

I'm not a right-wing war-crazed angry nutjob, but I definitely see objectively that we are stupid to rule out a multi-pronged effort to eradicating extremism, and that effort should have the option of military action on the table. If we have intelligence on ISIS leadership, we shouldn't hesitate to destroy them. If a caliphate has a stronghold, we should wipe it from existence with all means at our disposal.

You can't stop the nutjob from blowing himself up once he's committed to doing it, but you can strangle the network that enables the action, and you can act to explain morally why it is a distortion of Islam.

Multiculturalism and integration shouldn't involve walking around with your missus in a face mask though and scaring the bejaysus outta the rest of society. French were right to ban this nonsense. Agree with the rest of your points though mate

 

[Billy Dean]

But this current lot are detested, or were before he was shot, by Bin Laden.

It is far too simplistic to say "The West invaded Iraq and ISIS was the result".

It probably didnt help, but at the core, they are an organised criminal gang, albeit a large one, trading oil and drugs and heavens only knows what else, have Billions in the bank, and use the foot soldiers to perpetuate their influence and maintain their wealth.

They actually hate loads of other Muslims as well, remember.

It's not that simplistic. No Iraq invasion, no al qaeda in Iraq, no ISIS in Iraq. The west were also supporting, I.e. Funding and arming, ISIS in Syria to weaken Assad.

 

[roydo]

Referring to them as a gang (a well funded one at that) is a great description. Poor people feeling a part of something bigger. A purpose.

Vote Roydo.

Will be an utter disaster mind.

 

[tsubaki]

It's not that simplistic. No Iraq invasion, no al qaeda in Iraq, no ISIS in Iraq. The west were also supporting, I.e. Funding and arming, ISIS in Syria to weaken Assad.

the West weren't, unless you mean Turkey (edit) but you are right about the first points

 

[ToffeeTim]

I should have clarified that better.

Get out of their affairs with military action.

Offer any and all humanitarian aid we can.

Mate no offence but ISIS fighters aim to bring the whole world under a caliphate. We've exacerbated issues over the years (well not "us" obviously but Blair and Bush specifically), but to say it's our fault legitimises their ideology. We need to root out those radicalising Muslim kids. They are cowards who are filling heads with nonsense to make others do their bidding for them. Root them out of our society. Lock them up.

 

[John23]

Bin Laden hated them because of what they represented, which was an alternative place for the disaffected to flock to that was a lot easier to get to than al-Qaeda was. Had we not caused so many people to be disaffected in Iraq - by invading their country and throwing tens of thousands of them onto the dole - they wouldn't have gone into what became IS.

There will always be people like IS, al-Qaeda and their ilk - what we need to do is cut off their support, both by acting reasonably in the region (to deny them popular support) and by not ourselves supporting that sect to the exclusion of all other muslim opinion.

Not giving the World Cup to one of their biggest private financial supporters Qatar would have been a start. Not doing ANY trade with Saudi Arabia would be another

 

[roydo]

It's not that simplistic. No Iraq invasion, no al qaeda in Iraq, no ISIS in Iraq. The west were also supporting, I.e. Funding and arming, ISIS in Syria to weaken Assad.

Hindsight is a wonderful gift.

Please link me something, anything, that suggested invading Iraq would lead to the current situation.

Like I said, it didnt help, and like others have said, terrorism in the Middle East, against "The West", was prevalent decades before.

 

[hullefc]

That's it, you carry on defending the terrorists, or freedom fighters as you would call them.......no wonder we will never defeat terrorism, there are too many willing to excuse it......oh and it's all the fault of the British again......

Oh dear. Don't attempt to point fingers and claim that I am 'willing to excuse it' because you don't like an inconvenient answer. If governments are going to get involved in regime changes in other countries, and kill hundreds of thousands of people in the process, then there will be a reaction. If an occupying force is going to maim, kill and torture people in another country, there will be a reaction. As history has all too often shown.

 

[Billy Dean]

Hindsight is a wonderful gift.

Please link me something, anything, that suggested invading Iraq would lead to the current situation.

Like I said, it didnt help, and like others have said, terrorism in the Middle East, against "The West", was prevalent decades before.

There were lots of warnings to Blair and Bush that something like this would happen. I'll post links later.